To the Editor,
I feel compelled to comment on the Portsmouth Town Council meeting on Monday, November 24, 2025. I was elected to represent all the citizens of Portsmouth and that, my friends, is why I brought back for reconsideration a prior vote regarding Disc Golf at the Glen. A citizen representing a group of individuals who had done much research on since the prior vote requested me to bring this item back. I reviewed the new information carefully, and after consultation with our Solicitor regarding the legality of such a request, I decided to agree to bring this back for reconsideration. I gave my reasons for doing so in public, made the motion to reconsider, it was seconded and we voted on it. The vote was rescinded, and our normal course of action would have been to move on to our next order of business. Instead, what happened was quite extraordinary. Our President allowed comments after the vote which I have never seen before in any council proceeding. Maybe this will become our new norm. After all, if it is done for one it must be done for all.
Unfortunately, I do take issue with Ms. Stenning’s comments regarding “no new information.” Ms. Stenning publicly remarked that the back- up submitted by the citizens had nothing new, stating the exact pages that were previously commented on in prior meetings (3, 5-7, 11-12 and 15-25). Within the pages she says are not new (11-12) are statements in earlier testimony which contradict each other. The statements are not new, however, but the fact that there were contradictions in the previous testimony is! Other new information that she missed comes on pages (22-23) which show courses recently removed or presently under review for removal in multi- use parks. We are now up to 18 pages out of 31 relevant pages providing important information and graphics…I consider that substantial “new information” which necessitates reconsideration.
I also stated publicly that backup information that I submitted which was not included with the agenda item referenced a vote taken by the Portsmouth Town Council in July of 2010 which banned all golfing at the Glen in an overwhelming majority vote. I was told by the President that the two activities are completely different and not relevant. I beg to differ. The main difference between the two lies in the size of the object being propelled …. discs being considerably larger! If you are hit with a disc or a golf ball travelling at 70-80 miles an hour, the size won’t matter. Someone will be seriously hurt. The 2010 Portsmouth Town Council had more wisdom and foresight than we do.
It was ironic that the agenda item that followed the reconsideration of Disc Golf involved Flock cameras being installed in Portsmouth. This agenda came before a previous Town Council who voted in favor of allowing the cameras but who came back very soon after and rescinded that vote because citizens objected so loudly. Sound familiar? There are other cases where other Councils have brought back votes for reconsideration. Another similarity is the “can was kicked down the road” by a motion from Mr. Payera to “table” the Flock camera item. Maybe Councilor Payera has seen some benefits of “kicking the can down the road.”
I invite citizens of Portsmouth to view all the information that was presented as backup, as well as view the Town Council meeting of November 24. I also invite citizens to join in to find another home for the Disc Golf Course. There are other properties that we can consider that are safer and more appropriate.
Thank you for the opportunity to defend my action to reconsider and my vote against disc golf at Glen Park.
Sincerely,
Mary A. McDowell
Portsmouth Town Council